Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday March 30, 2012 @11:38AM
from the to-boldly-say-no-and-cackle-with-glee dept.

McGruber writes "The NY Times ('Cookies Set to Cleared, Captain!') is reporting that CBS is blocking fan-generated internet series 'Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II' from making an episode using an unproduced script from the original series. In a statement, CBS said, 'We fully appreciate and respect the passion and creativity of the "Star Trek" fan and creative communities. This is simply a case of protecting our copyrighted material and the situation has been amicably resolved.'"
The original writer of the episode, sci-fi author Norman Spinrad, was enthusiastic about the production, and planned to direct it himself.

We need to get away from the idea that you can just sit on something (anything, really) and take it out of usefulness to society for a worthless end result (nothing ends up being done with it, the item doesn't get better, and it doesn't gain value).

Did it occur to you that CBS might think the script sucks? And since they're the copyright owner they get to decide if they publish it or not. Do you really want a world where it's OK to publish someone else's work against their objections? Like say you write an erotic fanfic, but don't want to puiblish it. Should I really have the right to then make a feature length film based on your erotic fanfic without your approval?

the creator was on board and excited about the project. i understand that cbs "owns" the script, but do you really believe that the author originally sold his work because he wanted a corporation to bury it forever? i totally get that cbs has to defend their properties, but they could have resolved this in a manner other than taking their ball and going home. shit, i didn't even know that cbs owned the rights to star trek; "CBS greenlights fan-made Star Trek project" would be a way better headline for cbs, but i guess they just don't give a fuck about anything but today's dollar.

No, he sold it because he thought they'd make a nice TV episode with it. The author doesn't have the ability to hire actors, make sets, buy cameras, and film his own TV shows, and then get TV networks to broadcast them. So he sells his work to someone who does have all that, so that they'll use his script and turn it into a live-action TV episode. If they're not going to uphold their end of the bargain after all these years, then someone else should be allowed to use it.

Besides, this episode is probably decades old. If Congress hadn't stupidly passed unconstitutional copyright-extension laws, this thing would be in the public domain by now.

Of course, I'm not really sure how old this episode is, since I can't read TFA as it's behind a paywall, but since Phase II is a continuation of ST:TOS, I assume it was an episode written for the 60s show, and never made it to production because the show was canceled so early.

Yeah. That's right. The desires of the actual TALENT are being ignored here. That's OK. I am sure you will come up with some pro-corporate excuse why the desires of CBS should override the guy who wrote it in the first place.

If they haven't been willing to publish the work after all this time, their rights should be null and void anyways.

He sold it and took their money. If he wants he can try to buy it back, or if he doesn't want to give back the money he can write a different script (a monkey could write the crap they have been passing off as Star Trek TV episodes in the last decade).

If you want to argue the abstract validity of copyrights, fine, but the fact that a guy who wrote the work sold it for profit and now needs permission to use it not relevant to that argument.

it is derivative, just fails the substantially different test.Maybe CBS could have licensed it to them for $1.00 (or whatever the actual cost of providing a license is)?This way CBS is preserving their (C) but allowing the fan base to continue.-nB

Perhaps yes! The supposed intent of copyright law is promotion of works, not locking them away. There is no reason the law shouldn't reflect that properly. If you don't want your name on the fanfic, that should be your right to insist they credit it to anonymous. There should probably be some sort of compulsory licensing, something like a right of first refusal, or some sort of defined abandonment built in.

Most hollywood scripts have multiple authors, so Spinrad probably isn't the only person with 'moral rights' to the story. CBS probably doesn't even know the actual legal status of the script, and would have to rack up the lawyer hours to find out. There always could be some Harlan Ellison-type character waiting around to sue them. File this under CYA.

It's actually perfectly in keeping with the justification for private property used by some of the big thinkers in political science shortly before and a bit after the founding of the US, notably John Locke.

Granted his book was mostly fantasy, but a lot of people continue to use it in everyday lay discussion of politics and economics, so why not that part too?

I would guess that the concept of squatter's rights either influenced Locke & co.'s thinking, or vice-versa (too lazy to look it up), for a real-w

So, if you want to invoke the spectre of squatters' rights in intellectual property, CBS did one of the the only two things they could: fairly and quickly eject trespassers, to make it clear that there would be no squatting on their property.

Alas, as far as I can tell, they could have done one thing other than close down the fan production: give explicit

Did it occur to any of you that perhaps, just perhaps, CBS isn't hoarding? That the ownership of the script produced and submitted within the Hollywood structure (particularly the one that existed back in the 60's) includes a clause that forbids reassignment? That there may exist terms with the Screen Writers' Guild that forbids subcontracting SWG scripts for production by non SWG-signatory producers (like, y'know, fans)? Crap like that goes on all the time in Hollywood.

Screeching "GIMME GIMME GIMME MINE MINE MINE" like a two-year-old in the toy aisle of a supermarket isn't going to make CBS (or other owners of popular franchises) more likely to cooperate. In fact, it makes them more likely to start cruising through YouTube on a takedown spree. If the fringe fans become more trouble than they're worth, they're going to get shut down.

Their response hardly qualifies as a tantrum. What we're seeing here on Slashdot... does.

My sympathies lie entirely with CBS. The law is on their side, the basic fairness of "they paid for it, they should be able to control what they paid for" applies, and the behavior of people saying "we will take anything we want anytime we want" is infantile.

Time to write CBS a letter praising them for defending their rights, and in the process defending the rights of copyright owners everywhere.

Access the NY Times article without having to register with this link [nytimes.com].

The article is, as is typical of the Times, full of detail about the story in question. Some salient points:

Norman Spinrad - who wrote the original script in question - requested Gene Roddenberry not to make the episode, after the comedy he wrote was re-written into what he called "a very unfunny comedy" by Gene L. Coon (TOS producer), and Roddenberry complied with his wishes.

Spinrad himself comments on this sequence of events on his blog [blogspot.com]

ST Phase II has already produced an episode based on an unused script from the ST:TNG era called "Blood and Fire" by David "The Trouble with Tribbles" Gerrold (which Gerrold himself directed) without any dissent from CBS.

The Star Trek script is called "He Walked Among Us". It should not be confused, however, with Spinrad's non-ST science fiction novel of the same name, which is available in RTF format as shareware [scifidimensions.com].

Spinrad, who's 71 now, was an enfant terrible of SF back in the 1960's. His novels "Bug Jack Barron" and "The Men in the Jungle" broke what at the time was new ground (the former for its use of vulgarity, the latter for its subject matter). He's been one of the most consistently interesting SF writers ever since, and I can't recommend his work highly enough.

but I can see why they'd want to protect ownership of a valuable property.

Me too, but what the fuck does ownership of property have to do with copyright?

(SPOILER ALERT: "Nothing.")

Not sure if there's any legal basis for that. How can the concept of ownership not apply to copyright? If I create a work, I own the copyright for that work. It is a tangible and potentially marketable asset and I can transfer that asset to someone else. With that copyright, I have the legal right to control (subject to some limits, such as fair use) how that asset is used.

I know this isn't a popular idea here, but copyright is, in principle, a good thing. The length of time we're giving it is ridiculous, and the way the *AAs are handling it is problematic, but to listen to many people here, they think that "information wants to be free" so there should be no basis for copyright. Using this logic, should it be illegal to create a work and not publish it at all? Would that even be within my rights? Of course it would. If I have the right to publish or not, clearly I should have some types of rights to control how it is disseminated after I publish.

I fully reject the idea that once I create a work of art that I'm morally or in any other way required to give it to the world to use as they see fit. The creator of a work does own the copyright for that work, and can do with it as he sees fit.

If it ever was the case (and it's doubtful), it was a long, long time ago... when Copyright didn't last more then 2 decades from the time some work of art was created. The perversion of Copyright we have today (life + 70/95 years, or perpetual in case of corporations-owned copyrights) has long outlived its usefulness as promoting art-creation.

Why should I as the author expect anything from that? I didn't make the movie, why should I expect to get a piece of it just because they used my book as source material? Copyright should protect me from having Random House take my book, slap a different cover on it, and resell it as their own work. It shouldn't prevent people from making derivative works.

It's pretty much impossible to write a completely original novel or movie. Something somewhere in your work is going to be construed as a reference

Setting aside the awfully cute assumption you've made that Warner Brothers actually pays royalties to book authors without getting sued first, it would depend a lot on how long ago I wrote the best-selling book. I, for one, don't expect to be paid forever for something I did a long time ago. Don't get me wrong, it would be nice, and I wouldn't turn the money down, but I also wouldn't go around thinking I was entitled to it. What have I done lately?

The correct analogy would be you submit a book to a publisher and they lock it in a vault and refuse to publish it, then they refuse to let you turn it into a movie with another group of people. The actual author of this episode was actually part of the production.

This isn't a best-selling book, this is an unpublished script. The original author is one the record of stating that it's perfectly fine. There is a time window of 40 years in which CBS could have chosen to do something productive with the script. How do you think this is similar at all?

The quick answer is that yes, if I wrote a book and 40 years later Warner Brothers decides to make a movie of it without paying me any royalties, I'd be fine with that. Why? Because I don't buy into the BS line of reaso

That would be the company he worked for when he did the writing. You know, got paid for working for someone else and all? Hence the copyright not being his.

Well duh. The issue isn't the legal rights, those aren't under dispute, but that CBS are being dicks in enforcing those rights when to allow the script, for a series off the air for 45 years could do them no conceivable harm.

IANAL, but I would imagine it has to do with precedent. As I understand it, if you have a copyright on something, you have to protect it. If you don't, you lose it.

So if CBS doesn't protect this script, what's to say that someone else isn't going to snag last week's script from NCIS [cbs.com] and produce a "fan version" of the show. When CBS complains, they say, "Well, they didn't fight this guy! Why should it be different from us?" Keep in mind, also, that CBS still makes money from Star Trek.

Copyright is not as simple as that. While it seems intuitively obvious that this is a direct hindrance to the creation of art, thinking along these lines involves a relatively obvious (at least, in hindsight), but surprisingly common fallacy: namely the unfounded assumption that the inspiring artwork would have existed in the first place. To assume this is to implicitly assume that copyright is not valuable (since this initial existence is the mechanism by which copyright works), and thus makes any argument

As long as CBS paid him for the work, then he should not be able to retain the right to the work. If he wanted to maintain the full rights to the work, he should have not taken the money from CBS or he should have put it in his contract that he retains the rights to all the works that he wrote.

That's not the point. The point is the original author of this episode can't even use it after some 40 years. CBS has no desire to ever use this script and Copyright is suppose to encourage creative endeavours not prevent them just because. This sort of misuse of copyright is hurting our culture for no other reason than greed and a desire for unhealthy amounts of control.

Why protect copyrighted material for the sake of copyright? I could understand if they were going to do something with the script but it helps no one if it just sits around and gathers dust. Is someone making money off this series?

The point of Star Trek Phase II was that it is one of the best attempts at fan-indie TV, and they were originally granted lenient copyright clearance precisely because they had no real commercial ambitions - they just wanted to both provide new actors some work and the fans some new stories. The original actors got involved and volunteered for some episodes.

That's why this story is irritating, it's pure "Sit On It" Copyright Meanness.

To play devil's advocate: There is a new Star Trek movie in the works. What if they are using the script/plot/idea as the basis for the next movie? Or they were planning on digging into their "we've already paid for writers" pile in general?

If this was based on an unused script from the original series that means it is at least 40 years old. While it is true CBS owns the copyright it's a shame that copyrights are granted for such a long period of time. If Copyrights are granted with the idea they encourage the arts this is a clear example of the law not fulfilling its goals. I'm not against copyright but if the terms were shorter this wouldn't be an issue and we would have one more work created.

This is exactly why copyright should have been left at the previous very generous 20 years. Now some fans can't use an unpublished script written almost 55 years ago? A bit ridiculous. We need to get rid of the "corporations are people" concept and replace it with something more workable.

Yes, clearly a new Charlie Sheen sitcom is more artistically valid than a fan effort to bring an unseen script to the web.

After all, all stories older than 45 years are void of legitimate artistic merit. How about all those poor saps continually regurgitating authors like Dickens, Hugo, Homer, Shakespeare... so sad. What did they contribute to the 2012 pilot season?

Why is this news? Someone wants to directly copy material from a large corporation's profitable franchise, and the franchise says no. I think a big "Duh?" is in order.

If orignal author of the episode most likely wrote it under contract with CBS, his enthusiasm is immaterial, as the piece was not his to be enthusiastic about once he accepted money for it. If he did not do it under contract, his enthusiasm is immaterial, as the franchise was not his to be enthusiastic about. CBS is the entity that has the rights and trademarks for Star Trek, and if we are to have a productive society, the rights of ownership must be respected.

CBS's position is, the script was a 'work for hire', the way any script for an episodic tv show is. Writers were hired specifically to write for that show. Not all scripts or script ideas are used. Those that aren't used go on the shelf, probably to never be seen again. It would have been different if Norman had approached Desilu (the studio that was doing the original Star Trek) with a 'spec script', but that wasn't the case.

Why can't CBS just license it for a dollar? Copyright is enforced, license is legit, fans get something that CBS must know they're never going to do anything with. How many unproduced scripts can they have? Would they really ever re-make the series using the old scripts and use this one? Greed, pure and simple. "If we can't use it, nobody can"

We seriously need copyright reform. Copyright terms should be 14 years again. I think as a society, the we (the US) should just ignore copyrights after that time.

We seriously need copyright reform. Copyright terms should be 14 years again.

Agreed. I never understood why copyright was for so long. Much of what is copyright has become part of our culture and society. They have become common experiences that bind us together. Assuming the content creators plans on creating new content within a franchise, I can understand having rules to protect the actual characters/worlds themselves in order to keep outside people from destroying the franchise; however, if they are never going to create new content, why protect the characters? 15 years should b

I like that idea better, but the tricky part is what counts as using it? Or efforts to use it? This may become difficult to enforce and create additional court cases arguing over proof of efforts. Far more effective to just set much shorter terms.

Because, no matter how they try, they aren't one of the original writers, living in the same timeframe, experiencing the same world that the writer was. This script presumably in some way is influenced by the era in which it was written. This is the work that I would want to see performed, as it would be more like the Original Series. While I've enjoyed the New Voyages episodes, this would have been a great opportunity to see something that CBS will simply let rot until it is forgotten and too late.

Or, you know, these peole could come up with their own original idea or an episode? Nooo. That would be silly...

What is your problem? The original author is involved with this episode. Secondly it wouldn't mater if they wrote a new script CBS would still sue for using their ancient star-teak IP. I don't understand people like you other than you're just negative little do-nothings who will never add anything of value to the world or help in anything that doesn't profit you. It's really fucking sad.

Copyright is effectively a contract with the public: 'we let you have exclusive rights for a limited time so that we get more material in the public domain'. When big copyright holders breach their side of the contract by pushing ever-longer contract terms, the public don't see much reason to respect them.

This script is just sitting around, unused. If it were in the public domain, CBS could use it, or New Voyages could use it, or anybody could use it. Public domain PROMOTES artistic endeavors while the copy monopoly stifles it.

Yes.Exactly.And this copyright blocked the New Voyagers people, and even the original author, from converting a script to video form. It very, very clearly STIFLED creativity. The whole point is that Art is meant to be shared with EVERYONE, not locked up for 150 fucking years like YOU want it Anon. Coward

What's even worse is when the copy monopoly is used to deprive artists of their fair

I challenge you to name one truly "new" idea. Not an incremental change to an older idea, but something done without "taking someone else's IP and making some changes."?

I can't think of one.

Human ideas seem to me to be more about incremental improvement and changes. This is what makes the concept of copyright so valuable. It encourages people to release their changes so others can build upon them. If people are no longer allowed to generate thought through incremental changes to others ideas however, I

Copyrights may annoy copycats, but the existence of copyrights in their current form do not stop anyone from creating new ideas.

Yes, they do. With a reasonably high priced team of lawyers, you can 'prove' that just about anything is derived from anything else, and derivatives belong to the original copyright holder. If I write a science fiction story and mention Vulcan as a planet, I have 'derived' the story from Star Trek. If I reference Vulcan as an industrial orbital platform, I've 'derived' the story

Thankfully the era of media conglomerates owning pop culture will soon be over. With fan efforts like Kickstarter, new IP can be made with a Creative Commons or Copyleft scheme that will preserve it from being captured and abused by corporations while allowing fans free creative reign.

Can you imagine what western culture would be like if Homer's descendants were the Greek Disneys?

public: Hey, he didn't even make up the original myths, he just retold them!

Greek lawyers: Doesn't matter. Copyright extents to the author's death plus 3,000 years.

public: But what about culture?

Greek lawyer: These temples don't pay for themselves, bitch. Now we've gotta take it up with the Hebrews on this Samson character. Clearly they're infringing on our Herakles IP.

Hebrew lawyers: Get in line. We're already filing a lawsuit against those Messianics for unauthorized derivative material. They lifted our entire Torah and just added new material at the end.

St. Paul Diddy: It's called sampling. This book wasn't nothing before I got here.

troll lawyers: Cease and desist all of you. We bought the IP rights to the Sumerian tablets. All of you are in violation.

I don't know enough about either side of the argument to figure it out. I did assume they "just already have it" and are banking on the movie bringing in more then they spend (that is, an investment of sorts).

On the actual topic, I'm on the fence. On one hand, most indie stuff sucks. People who like it tend to like it specifically because it's indie. Not saying there arn't some real gems out there, but I think claiming that we have an over-abundance of high quality indie material out there is pushing it fai

Lots of people like indie content for what it is, but the big budget stuff we all love to put down is popular for a reason.. it's what most people want.

No, the big budget stuff is what the studios tell us we want. From everything I'm hearing, even with Disney hyping and advertising it beyond the stars, John Carter is reputedly a flop, and they spent a ton of money telling everybody they want to see John Carter.

The fact that it only loosely tells the story (by having the same characters and some of the same plotting and redoing everything else) may have alot to do with it. As is I've read the books and they were not that great for sci-fi. The interesting thing from them was a mars with people on it (and for some the fact that the marsians were nudists), neither point was really used by Disney to tell an interesting story. So that may have far more to do with the failures of Disney's take on Barsoom.

Why could we not just declare Star Trek a religion? It pretty much is one at this point. As long as what is produced is not for profit, I would think the creation of "religious materials" might get better protection.

The AC pointed out how litigatous the Scientologist and LDS Churches get when their secret texts are distributed to the general public. But even mainstream religions get in on copyright as well. For example the most commonly used English translations of the Bible are protected under copyright law, for some and this copyright is rigorously enforced [zondervan.com].

...that mindshare of the older star trek properties, designs and interfaces will fade, since CBS isn't doing much with them and they're absolutely forbidding anyone else to keep old Trek in the public eye? It seems like CBS's interests would be better served to provide license at reasonable cost, and keep the properties in the public eye.